Oakland at the Turn of the Century
Probably today's major (and often most frustrating) public agency engineer responsibility is the maintenance and improvement of local infrastructure. They must deal with ever-increasing traffic volumes and vehicle weights, frequent utility cuts in crowded rights of way, and other operations which affect the systems, accompanied by ever-increasing costs and (seemingly) ever-shrinking funds.
How did their late 19th Century predecessors fare, in the days before motor vehicles became the normal means of circulation and transport? Let's look at the Report to the Board of Public Works by Oakland Superintendent of Streets, M. K. Miller, C.E., for the two year period ending June 30, 1898. This 70-page report contains extensive discussion and details on streets, bridges, sewers, street openings, maintenance, assessment districts, various structures, and other matters. The information includes physical and financial statistics and descriptions of processes and designs. Interestingly, the writing style is more of a personal narrative than found in most technical reports.
Mr. Miller obviously had a lot of unresolved issues which concerned him. Very early, he points out the need for “liberal provision in the tax levy” for his department. Sound familiar? This was well before the days of fuel taxes, sewer service charges, and similar dedicated sources. He must have been having trouble obtaining adequate funds because he "sermonizes" on municipal responsibility for preserving its investment. He also expresses frank complaints about problems coordinating with the Oakland City Engineer with respect to improvement projects, criticizing the quality of the plans and specifications for such work. He says “an engineer may be rich in book learning and a thoroughly competent man for office work, but unfamiliar with the practical details involved in construction work . . .” A discussion of this nature would not be found in similar documents today. One wonders what the Mayor thought of such an approach.
An early section is entitled “Our Street Problem”. Street surfaces apparently were mostly macadam, with only 4.5 miles of “bituminous rock pavements”. Miller describes some evidently wide-spread citizen unhappiness with street conditions and also property owner objections to paying a 50% share of “permanent” paving. He says “a modern street pavement must be smooth, noiseless, sanitary, and durable, and it must afford a good foothold for horses during all kinds of weather”. Asphalt pavement is described as representing radical differences of opinion among “experts”, partly because there had been no consensus on how such pavements should be constructed. There were problems of slipperiness in wet weather and softening in hot conditions. He quotes one expert: “I trust it will be ere long, when it will be as easy to learn how to lay an asphalt pavement as it is to lay one of granite or brick”. Miller claims that in California, bituminous rock pavements had a better record. Another problem was that the early methods for testing materials could be inconsistent and inconclusive. He had a poor opinion of vitrified brick, stone block, and wood block pavements, common types at the time, of which Oakland had some experience.
The reader appreciates the analysis he makes of the problems he was facing and ways he tried to deal with them. At that time, Oakland had some cable, horse, and electric railways in its streets, which created certain undesirable surface conditions, especially for horse-drawn vehicles. Such problems are not unknown today, although modern light rail construction standards do a much better job. Mr. Miller shared a perennial problem with 21st century engineers, street openings for underground facilities, particularly how the trenching is done and how (or if) the site is satisfactorily restored. Those who work with urban streets know that this is one of the things that seem never to change. Overall, Mr. Miller impresses one as a dedicated, capable, professional engineer. His resources were limited, but he pursued solutions energetically. We may come back to the Oakland report in future columns, to further explore the differences and similarities over the past 100+ years.
How did their late 19th Century predecessors fare, in the days before motor vehicles became the normal means of circulation and transport? Let's look at the Report to the Board of Public Works by Oakland Superintendent of Streets, M. K. Miller, C.E., for the two year period ending June 30, 1898. This 70-page report contains extensive discussion and details on streets, bridges, sewers, street openings, maintenance, assessment districts, various structures, and other matters. The information includes physical and financial statistics and descriptions of processes and designs. Interestingly, the writing style is more of a personal narrative than found in most technical reports.
Mr. Miller obviously had a lot of unresolved issues which concerned him. Very early, he points out the need for “liberal provision in the tax levy” for his department. Sound familiar? This was well before the days of fuel taxes, sewer service charges, and similar dedicated sources. He must have been having trouble obtaining adequate funds because he "sermonizes" on municipal responsibility for preserving its investment. He also expresses frank complaints about problems coordinating with the Oakland City Engineer with respect to improvement projects, criticizing the quality of the plans and specifications for such work. He says “an engineer may be rich in book learning and a thoroughly competent man for office work, but unfamiliar with the practical details involved in construction work . . .” A discussion of this nature would not be found in similar documents today. One wonders what the Mayor thought of such an approach.
An early section is entitled “Our Street Problem”. Street surfaces apparently were mostly macadam, with only 4.5 miles of “bituminous rock pavements”. Miller describes some evidently wide-spread citizen unhappiness with street conditions and also property owner objections to paying a 50% share of “permanent” paving. He says “a modern street pavement must be smooth, noiseless, sanitary, and durable, and it must afford a good foothold for horses during all kinds of weather”. Asphalt pavement is described as representing radical differences of opinion among “experts”, partly because there had been no consensus on how such pavements should be constructed. There were problems of slipperiness in wet weather and softening in hot conditions. He quotes one expert: “I trust it will be ere long, when it will be as easy to learn how to lay an asphalt pavement as it is to lay one of granite or brick”. Miller claims that in California, bituminous rock pavements had a better record. Another problem was that the early methods for testing materials could be inconsistent and inconclusive. He had a poor opinion of vitrified brick, stone block, and wood block pavements, common types at the time, of which Oakland had some experience.
The reader appreciates the analysis he makes of the problems he was facing and ways he tried to deal with them. At that time, Oakland had some cable, horse, and electric railways in its streets, which created certain undesirable surface conditions, especially for horse-drawn vehicles. Such problems are not unknown today, although modern light rail construction standards do a much better job. Mr. Miller shared a perennial problem with 21st century engineers, street openings for underground facilities, particularly how the trenching is done and how (or if) the site is satisfactorily restored. Those who work with urban streets know that this is one of the things that seem never to change. Overall, Mr. Miller impresses one as a dedicated, capable, professional engineer. His resources were limited, but he pursued solutions energetically. We may come back to the Oakland report in future columns, to further explore the differences and similarities over the past 100+ years.
You are here: